Why You Should Be a Libertarian
And why you might be already
PI editorial

The libertarian ideology is one of the most misunderstood in American politics. Many citizens don't have any idea what it is. Most of them who do - liberal and conservative - aver that libertarianism is nothing but a worthless form of crypto-anarchy. The author of one recently popular anti-libertarian article, titled with brevity "Why I Am Not a Libertarian," argues that libertarians want to privatize everything, and that since privatization of such things like the Pennekamp Coral Reef in Key Largo would destroy the cute fish and their natural habitat there, libertarianism is not for him. He also alleges that to be libertarian is to support abolishing welfare in favor of ruthless Social Darwinism, and since he doesn't like the idea of handicapped people being tossed in the street, so he rejects that axiom of "libertarianism" as well.

Granted, many libertarian authors have unfortunately espoused wild ideas such as universal privatization or the abolition of welfare. Many still do. But no political viewpoint is exclusive to the opinions of its published authors, or can a position be entirely dismissed because of the opinions of its most dogmatic talking heads. For example, most conservatives support the drug war, but William F. Buckley, Jr., the most brilliant conservative, directly opposes it. (Note: Late in Mr. Buckley's career, he occasionally referred to himself as libertarian.) Many conservatives justify their positions with Christian theology, but many other conservatives do not. Some liberals, such as Hillary Clinton, support illiberal positions like legislation intended to preserve the morality of children. Many liberals are religious skeptics, but many other liberals are not. The variance within ideologies - in either philosophical foundation or policy positions - is as common as political opinion itself.

When one becomes a "conservative," he is not forced by a phantom Ideology Regulator to align his viewpoints on every issue to the content of the Rush Limbaugh Show. When one is a "liberal," there is no requirement that she agree wholeheartedly with every word uttered by Nancy Pelosi. Similarly, just because prominent libertarians are recklessly anti-state or anarcho-capitalist, it doesn't mean that all libertarians have to harbor similar delusional fantasies of "absolute freedom."

Moderate libertarianism, distinguished from its infamous extremist cousin, supports the general increase of personal freedom and market competition wherever feasible. The debate among these libertarians is what constitutes such an opportunity for practical reform and progressive policies, not what constitutes a coercive Big Government diktat awaiting emancipation by the savior called Capitalism.

This organization is moderate libertarian. You can read our indictments of Ayn Rand's objectivism and the Libertarian Party. You can observe our support for welfare, state-funded health insurance, and environmental protection. We oppose the inheritance tax because we respect the right of successful parents to support their children, but we also published the excellent but contrary argument that inheritance is unearned income and thus more efficient to tax. We argue against certain inefficient technologies. We see the need to regulate efficiently and often, and have specifically proposed various taxation schemes to ameliorate the social ills that corporations can wreak. We do not argue abstract theoretical points and then universalize our conclusions; we analyze each issue independently with empirical evidence.

Our aim is to appeal to those who weren't already persuaded by Libertarianism in One Lesson. We only support public policies that can be feasibly implemented, but we are no less libertarian as a result. The moderate libertarian is not an crypto-anarchist in the vein of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but a pro-market pragmatist in the vein of The Economist. We support personal freedom and choice, not because we are suspicious of government's right to restrict behavior, but because we have seen pluralism and freedom help develop a enriching, prosperous and innovative society. As Mr. Buckley himself aptly noted, "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."

Moderate libertarianism is a widely-respected position (in ironic contrast to the widely-derided libertarian extremism), generally referred to in America as "social liberalism and fiscal conservatism." It is also called classical liberalism, small-government conservatism, or European liberalism.

Moderate libertarianism is the fastest-growing position in American politics. While party identification declines every year, more and more Americans are shifting to this "social liberal and fiscal conservative" banner. But they are represented by neither party, and certainly by no prominent commentators.

Some politicians are already courting these independent, de facto libertarian voters. DNC Chairman Howard Dean uses the dual liberal/conservative nomenclature to expand the Democratic tent, while his conservative opponents such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have long used similar rhetoric to court libertarian-leaning conservatives. Many successful election strategies - from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair's Third Way to the Republican Contract With America - have involved political baby steps away from party doctrine and toward this moderate libertarian position. According to Gallup, 20% of Americans already actively identify themselves with it. Many more are on the edge: 28 million Bush voters in 2004 had (unfulfilled) socially liberal leanings.

It is no wonder that these moderate libertarian voters don't have a home, or even know that they are libertarian at all. Their options in political commentary are a Zugzwang: partisan loudmouths or the extremist libertarians who are rightly hammered by the partisan loudmouths.

But the development of moderate libertarianism will give these independent voters a voice. With the continuing efforts of well-respected publications (The Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times), governments (EU's Lisbon Agenda, Japan's Koizumi reforms) and non-governmental organizations (OECD, IMF, World Bank), who advance moderate libertarian positions in fact, if not name, libertarianism will continue to gain ground.

The collectivist, socialist attitudes that underpin the economic policies of American liberals are being discredited: globalization and technology continually teach the humanitarian value of economic growth. The social atavism of conservatives is being rapidly impugned by scientific progress and social pluralism.

It is the libertarians have the best ideas from both liberals and conservatives. Do you want to be where politics was, or where it is going?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Clark Ruper, March 12, 2008

First off, I agree with your observation that many Americans are already moderately libertarian and that those numbers are growing every year. Institutions like PI will only continue that advancement. I also agree with your strategy of advocating realistic policies which appeal to the American mainstream. I applaud the work you are doing for liberty.

However I am curious as to why you show such animosity towards "extremist" libertarians, anarchists, minarchists, objectivists, ect. Obviously all of these positions differ with respect to the proper limits on governmental authority. But the fact of the matter is that our nation's policies are so far to the statist side that we are all allies in this fight.

Honestly I do not know exactly which camp I fall into. I want man to be as free as possible from coercion, but there is probably some proper roll of government. Where that limit is exactly I can't tell you, but I'm willing devote my life to working for liberty towards the point where I can realistically see that hidden line.

If your point is one of strategy, I agree with you. We must start by advocating popular positions which appeal to American's love of personal independence without scaring them off. But that doesn't mean I'm ready to purge Rockwell for engaging in political philosophy and advocacy. I think that civil internal debates are healthy and help us all refine our own philosophy. I’ll gladly have the debate on privatizing roads when (if) we ever reach the point where that is possible. For the mean time I see libertarians on both sides of that issue as allies. To me a moderate trying to discredit an extremist is no worse that the extremist belittling the moderate for not being pure enough. Neither action brings us any closer towards our shared goals.

I will end by paraphrasing our hero Barry Goldwater: Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is not virtue. To many Americans in 1964, Goldwater was an extremist and he lost his election for it. But he called America's attention to a higher ideal. He set the standard of liberty high, higher than he could have achieved then but at a level which is now more within our reach. In doing so he gave birth to a cohesive small government alliance of traditionalists, conservatives, anti-communists, classical liberals, libertarians, ect; a movement which has achieved great results and which we all work in today. Just because we disagree slightly on the ideal doesn't mean we should fight each other or set a low bar for liberty. We can all agree that we have come a long way and that have a long way to go.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by M. Harrison, March 13, 2008

Dear Mr. Ruper,

Thank you for the positive comments.

We agree with you wholeheartedly. If we have represented our position to be that we oppose "extreme" views, we apologize. Our opposition to certain positions is indeed a strategic one, and not a moral one.

We published Beckerman's article "Get Real" in order to help libertarians observe the large disconnect between our views and the views of mainstream society. We don't believe that is cause to abandon our principles; rather, it is simply a wake up call that we've been failing, miserably, to effectively promote them.

Most fundamentally, PI believes that the vision of a utopian libertarian future is wholly incompatible with America's current political system, and thus our focusing on utopia only convinces the rational moderate that libertarianism is an impossible dream. That is not to say it's irrational - only that it is politically impotent. We believe it is far better to move toward liberty in a practical sense, convinced of our empirical correctness, and slowly-but-surely expose the public to the utility of freedom in practice.

Our brand of "moderate" libertarian believes that more freedom is better than less freedom, even if it is still not total freedom. We hope to bring together all who value freedom in this quest, and we're honored that you appreciate our efforts.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of extremists who refuse to accept more freedom unless it is total freedom. In his recent book on the history of libertarianism, Brian Doherty even mentions one of the distinguishing features of the libertarian movement is its propensity to excommunicate those members who aren't "pure" as not "real libertarians." It has been and is PI's mission to distance ourselves from this wasteful civil war.

We always think about it in terms of economics - namely the Law of Demand. The cheaper a product is, the more demand there is for it. The same principle applies to libertarianism - if in order to be "libertarian", one has to reject every government program ever designed, resent every tax ever levied, and cynically assume that everything the state does is a malicious usurpation of tyrannical power, the "cost" of being libertarian is extremely high, because one has to reject scores of deeply-held, common sense views. The current leaders who "sell" libertarianism have kept the intellectual "cost" high, which has kept the demand for libertarianism low. As long as those representing libertarianism require extremism in order to join the club, the club will remain the marginalized cult it is today.

But if we can make it easy to be libertarian - say, by inviting in a fellow who just opposes the drug war while he likes low taxes, even if he doesn't want to abolish the Federal Reserve - we make adopting libertarianism nearly "costless", and thus increase its demand. However, to change this public perception, we must point out that many of our current libertarian "leaders", such as Lew Rockwell, are failing in their leadership.

We don't seek to discredit their views per se - only their contention that they hold a monopoly on what is "libertarian."

We apologize that our efforts to distance ourselves from this endemic disease appeared to be a distancing from libertarianism itself. We assure you that is not the case.

We appreciate your comments and moving forward, we will make a strong effort to make our intentions and views more clear. We welcome all libertarians to our side in order to help give this nation a freer future.

Matt Harrison

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Kristina Love, March 14, 2008

I was right with Mr. Ruper on his articulate comment.

Mr. Harrison, your response confuses me a little bit.

You seem simultaneously to defend two differing lines of thought. One, that your "moderate" form of libertarianism is pragmatically the best strategic way to attract mainstream people into the movement, while implying (a bit ambiguously) that you still share the same philosophical principles and goals as the "original" libertarians. And two, in opposition to your first line of thought, that the "original" libertarians are cynical, delusional, and possibly snotty enough to exclude you from their social club.

While I whole-heartedly agree that "more freedom is better than less freedom, even if it is still not total freedom," I'm sure that Lew Rockwell and others whom you feel are too "extremist" would also agree with you there. I do not buy that a significant or relevant portion of the libertarian movement reject all progress in the real world unless it is an overnight revolution into a philosophically pure "utopia," or even a 100% free society (bearing in mind that those are two different animals - I have never heard any libertarian claim that a totally free society would be a utopia - but I HAVE heard many a libertarian [Harry Browne comes to mind] say that a free society would NOT be a utopia. It would be much like our own society, only freer and much better overall - not perfect). Like Mr. Ruper, if your point is one of strategy, I too agree with you -- but so do "immoderate" libertarians. Lots of them.

I feel concerned that The Prometheus Institute mistakes philosophical consistency for pie-in-the-sky daydreaming. Like Plato's forms, there is a pure ideal, one that exists only in the human mind, and perhaps will never exist anywhere else. Virtually everyone acknowledges its unattainable nature. Those who work to bring it about know that even a drastic change in the right direction will likely not come in their own lifetime, and possibly not even in that of their children. "Moderate" libertarians and/or "neo-libertarians" are not unique in this realization. But to set the bar high and to make sure that the ideal form continues to exist in our minds is vitally important, because if it ceases to exist even in our minds and discussions, the gradual encroachment of collectivism and totalitarianism will have more leeway, more footholds, more chinks in our armor to aim at, and will take over at a more rapid pace.

I think your statement that some libertarians cynically resent every federal program and every tax levied, and view it all as tyrannical usurpation, denotes a misunderstanding on your part that I would like to clarify. Every federal program and every tax levied which exceeds the proper role of government, is not in itself a tyrannical usurpation. Rather, it is a relatively tiny step which, added to millions of other tiny steps, makes future tyrannical usurpation a very natural and palatable prospect for the right tyrants. And in the here and now, it makes us a tiny bit less free.

With the obvious, given exception of those that lean more decisively on the side of anarchy or voluntaryism, the growing base of libertarians seek not to abolish the federal government, but to limit it to its proper role as enumerated in the Constitution. The federal government should provide a national defense, a criminal justice system, and a court system to settle civil disputes. Acts of force and fraud should be punished. Practical, action-oriented compromise is not unheard of among old-school libertarians. The idea that action can be (and really must be) gradual is fairly universal.

While I can see the positive side of, as you say, lowering the intellectual cost of becoming a libertarian, I feel that there is also a down side. It detracts from spreading the most important message of all - a message which simply cannot be diluted in any fashion without destroying its integrity, and that is this: The underlying foundation of the philosophy of liberty is that NO act of coercion is justified except in self-defense, whether by an individual or a nation. This is the bedrock principle upon which every libertarian view is derived, whether it pertains to taxes, welfare, social programs, the drug war, our monetary system, foreign policy, or what have you. There is a rainbow of diversity within the libertarian movement, it's true. But the rejection of coercive force except in self-defense, in the most absolute terms, (at least as a long-term goal, whether or not it can realistically be accomplished in any given period of time) is the ONE unwavering prerequisite of "libertarian" thought.

This absolute purity may not jive with your own tastes - but nevertheless, that is what libertarianism is.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Matt Harrison, May 05, 2008

Kristina -

You misunderstand much of our position.

1) The existing libertarian leadership may, as you point out, support gradual change. But there is a world of difference between conceding the necessity of gradual reform and actually doing something to make it happen. My point is that their caring more about philosophic consistency than getting us more freedom in our lives has harmed the movement overall. You should talk to more people who despise libertarians, and you'll know what I mean.

2) What distinguishes PI generally from most other libertarian groups is a general focus on the empirical superiority of libertarian ideas. That may make you uncomfortable, but we want freedom that matters and will make a positive impact in our daily lives. For example, issues like Social Security private accounts (as opposed to entirely abolishing Social Security) have much potential to improve our well-being in the world we live in.

If we don't start supporting incremental solutions with potential to increase our freedoms - yes, that means supporting some form of regulation in the process - we're going to be getting nowhere. Or do we want Libertarian candidates to get infinitesimal percentages of the popular vote in perpetuity?

3) No one outside the tiny libertarian movement is impressed with philosophic purity. Politics is a dirty business, and it means getting large groups of people to agree with your perspective. Libertarians need to deal with this reality, and realize most people don't care to reject every government regulation a priori as coercion, simply because they don't feel coerced by most of them, and so they think you sound like an idiot when you tell them that they are but just don't know it.

4) The failure of libertarians to distinguish the world of philosophy from the world of political reality is the core failure of the movement. People don't respond to philosophic exhortations that logically require the renunciation of many of their deeply-held beliefs. Rather, they respond to positive messages that detail practical ideas that can make their lives better.

It's exactly libertarians who can most effectively perform the latter, and that's exactly what PI intends to do. We say freedom works best; you say freedom works best. What's the problem here, exactly?

My point is that your philosophic purity, while certainly self-gratifying, is poisonous to the cause we support when pursued excessively and extended to every conceivable issue as if every deprivation of freedom is equally egregious.

5) That doesn't mean your philosophic purity has no purpose. We're all libertarians, and we're all on the same team. I find the a priori debate on liberty enlightening and important. Please, take no offense to our positions or our distance from you within the policy debate.

But realize that in the marketplace of ideas, philosophically-pure libertarianism is a stale, unwanted political commodity. It's time for a new product that can actually sell.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Ryan, May 28, 2008

I entirely concur with the purpose of this organization.

As a moderate libertarian, not associated with the LP at all, I believe it is vital that moderate libertarian policies based upon obtainable political objectives is the only way libertarianism will have any impact on the U.S. electoral system. Doctrine Libertarians have held the governing philosophy hostage for far too long, with their insistance on philosophical purity while libertarianism gains no political momentum whatsoever. Political compromising to achieve a politcal goal in the advancement of liberty is not a compromise of principles nor ideals.

There are many moderate libertarians who stand ready to make the journey out of the political wilderness and present to the American people policies that will appeal to them not because they are 'philosophically' pure, but because they are the same ideals that inspired the words of the Declaration of Independence, and the Framing Generation to sacrifice all for liberty.

I, for one, applaud this organization and the vital and important work that it is doing. More organizations such as this one are urgently needed if libertarianism is ever to grip the imaginations of the American people.

Kindest Regards,
Ryan Christiano
National Political Science Honor Society Inductee.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0